RicOlie_2

Sounds good. To clarify and sum up what I'm getting at, would it be correct to say the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible if the Book of Mormon isn't a perfect translation either? It was translated only once, but Joseph Smith wasn't entirely faithful to the text if it was a translation. The example I gave was the word "Jew" which couldn't have been in the original books of Nephi if they were as old as they are believed to be by the LDS.

S-16

In this article, the author states:

"Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power."

Do you agree with that statement? If so, what is your response to the many anachronisms contained within the Book of Mormon which can only be explained (assuming Mormonism is correct, of course) on the assumption that Joseph Smith (or in some cases, the original authors) used words more familiar to him (/them). For example: I am reading 2 Nephi which uses the word "Jew." As far as I am aware, this word came into use no earlier than the second century B.C. and is therefore an anachronism. If Joseph Smith replaced words and used phrasing not actually present in the original text, but slightly altered to closer match familiar phrasing in the KJV, can the Book of Mormon truly be called more correct than the Bible?

I may be misunderstanding the LDS beliefs regarding the correctness of the Book of Mormon over the Bible, but if not, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I don't think this would compromise your beliefs in any way, of course, but I'm just curious to know how you think the Book of Mormon compares in correctness to a translation like the New American Bible (NAB) which used the oldest texts available for translation, and retained the closest possible wording to the original manuscripts.

Sorry about the weird highlighting. I copied the quote and messed the whole thing up.

S-18

Px17

Gs-20

I'm the intelligent one around here! I make more acute observations than Ric Olie himself(!)--I'm still convinced you're an impostor. Take a look at my signature, title, and avatar if you are in doubt.

Gs-24

I don't intend to be mean, Jetrell, but you seem to have an entirely different idea of humour than the rest of us on this forum, so apologies if we don't get each other's jokes.

N-17

Since the two of us started working on the rules, we've created four different versions on top of the one with the rules currently on Zillions. :)

SC-21

I had completely forgotten that the king could move two squares ahead, so maybe it won't be a problem after all. It might still be a weakness, but it's probably OK as is.

Three pieces could make that checkmate move (with both their promoted and unpromoted values):

Ramshead Soldier/Bishop

Silver Cannon/Gold Cannon

Silver General/Gold General

S-19

I see a possible flaw with the spacing thing. If a person were to capture a piece that landed on every second square, they could checkmate their opponent by dropping it right in from of the ramshead soldier. The RS wouldn't be able to take the piece, since it would have to jump over it, and the king would be trapped. Having a piece in front of the RS would probably help that, so I think we should put a silver general or something in that spot in order to prevent a cheap checkmate like that. Maybe you think that would be OK though. Thoughts?

P-18

Sounds good.

SC-24

My dad's theory is that the real world is right outside the movie, meaning that the whole thing is a dream, and that Mal was right all along. Her appearances in the dreams are usually her going into the dreams attempting to convince Dominic that he is still dreaming, rather than his projection of her. It's an interesting idea, but I haven't studied it enough to be sure if it would actually fit with the movie.

Galileo was certainly unjustly accused over a misinterpretation of the Bible. Yes, I would love to be able to change that in his favour, but as for representing him, I think I would have ended up being declared a heretic and tossed into jail or something like that. Some very narrow-minded people have been in high positions in the Church throughout history.

I think it works pretty well. We're playing with the gold general being the demoted value and the silver general being the promoted value, correct? I just want to make sure the gold general was intentional since you have the gold general being the promoted value in your notes on the right.

I'm fine with leaving the lion out of it for now. If we want to add it, or another piece, back in, we can put it on the square in front of the ramshead soldier since the RS jumps over that square anyway.

Let's test it, shall we?

Bingowings said:

I doubt if they believed it to be literally the truth in ancient Sumeria either.

I am responding to your statement that "[y]ou are a Catholic and the tradition of Catholic doctrine stems from a literal interpretation of the allegorical/symbolic literature most people call The Bible" and apparently misread "The Bible" as "Genesis." It depends on which part of the Bible you're referring to. The books of Jonah, Tobit, a lot of Genesis, etc., are not generally considered literal.

Did I ever tell you I met Bill Gamesh (he hates it when you get his name wrong)?

 It took me a moment to get that. :D

February 11:

660 B.C.: Traditional date for the founding of Japan.

A.D. 55: Roman Emperor Tiberius dies, clearing the way for Nero's reign.

A.D. 385: Siricius becomes Bishop of Rome and is the first to style himself "Pope."

A.D. 1531: King Henry VIII becomes head of the Anglican Church after its schism with Rome.

Bingowings, St. Augustine recognized in the 4th century that the Genesis creation story could not be literal. Some have since taken it as entirely literal, but the idea that it is allegorical is not recent.

darth_ender said:

Well, I haven't messed up that setup on my board if you want to continue playing, but I'd almost rather skip the mess with the first four pieces.  I guess if you want to take back your last move, we could go from there with the alternate arrangement of those pieces.

I think we should spend some more time looking at the game and then start over.

JEDIT: Of course then we'd have two gold generals.  I wish I'd played this with someone when I first came up with these rules, but I was all by my lonesome without any shogi partner :'( *sniff*

See my above post for my solution, of course.

I honestly think we will need to start over.  We haven't gotten too far, and I may want to adjust the other pieces for now as well.  And I do need to work tomorrow.  What I will do is spend a few more minutes seeing if I like a different setup (probably similar to what you have already done).  I will send you my Excel spreadsheet (probably in the morning), either to play with or to rearrange your own.  Sorry about the bad news and lack of progress.

Can attachments be sent via PMs, or do we need each other's emails?

I have three variations of the board mocked up, because as I said above, I'm not replacing them as I go, which will be useful in the future, I think. I'm OK with ironing out the flaws, so don't apologize. The longer we spend fixing it up, the more fun it will be to play.

darth_ender said:

Just a minute of looking helped me come up with something else.  Right now I'm just referring to the first four pieces that get in each others' ways so often:

P
N
S
Gs

So I move the knight forward, replace the iron general with a silver general (with a gold general on the reverse) and place that piece third, and have the goose in back.  This allows the pawn, knight, or goose the first move.  Once the pawn or knight has moved, the silver may move.  One may move the pawn and knight, or silver and knight, without having to move any other pieces forward.  See, this was part of the problem: once you moved one of your pieces forward, you had to move it again just to move another piece, and thus place your first piece in danger.  This way two pieces may move.  The silver and goose also have an option for retreat.  So a player, even with such weak starting pieces, can still rearrange the pieces a bit as part of his opening moves.  What do you think?

I think that sounds good. I'll adapt my mock-up accordingly. There will still be a gold general/lion on the board though, correct?

Instead of replacing each mock-up, I'm adding new ones on my spreadsheet. That way, I'll be able to see the evolution of the game and also go back to a version we thought worked better without having to recreate it.

I should make sure that we are on the same page here: the gold  moves just like the silver, only it steps one backwards instead of jumping 2 backwards.  

 That is what I understood. With those moves, perhaps the gold general ought to promote to a silver general since the silver general can retreat more quickly. I say we have a gold general/silver general close to the front and a silver general/lion in the back.

darth_ender said:

Well, I'm unhappy with this already.  First, I had my board set up incorrectly, but now that I've fixed it, I don't see how you could have moved your Silver Cannon to 22.  I am not blaming you, but as we are working from our own separate Excel creations, we may have things different enough to cause such an miscommunication.

I made a mistake that I forgot to point out. I was missing a space and meant 23, not 22.

I see what you mean. N-18